Adds a comment to a Spira artifact, such as an incident, task, or requirement, so you can record updates or discussion directly on the tracked item.
Add a comment to an artifact.
Use product_get_artifact with include=["comments"] to read existing comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| product_id | No | ||
| artifact_id | Yes | ||
| artifact_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about who the comment is attributed to, whether it can be edited or deleted afterward, whether product_id is required for certain artifact scopes, or any permission/visibility constraint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, action first and the read-side pointer second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a four-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least clarify the artifact targeting and optional product_id, which it omits entirely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. It never mentions artifact_id, artifact_type, text, or the optional product_id, and leaves ambiguous when product_id must be supplied and how artifact_type interacts with artifact_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a concrete verb and resource ("Add a comment to an artifact"), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like product_create_artifact or create_association. It does not enumerate which artifact types accept comments, but the schema enum covers that, so it is clear without being redundant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly routes the read path to product_get_artifact with include=["comments"], giving the agent a concrete alternative for the inverse operation. It stops short of stating when a comment is the right action versus updating the artifact or when the tool should not be used (e.g., unsupported artifact types).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.